zemax_set_apertureSet the OpticStudio system aperture type and value to define the ray bundle used in optical simulations; choose EPD, F-number, object NA, float by stop, or a Zemax enum.
Set the system aperture type and value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Aperture value | |
| apertureType | No | EPD, FNumber, ObjectNA, FloatByStop, or Zemax enum name | EPD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this mutates global system state, whether the change affects subsequent analyses, what happens on an invalid aperture type, or that apertureType defaults to EPD. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a two-parameter setter. It is efficient, though it is arguably too thin to be fully informative rather than verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a global system-state mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs beyond the schema: prerequisites, side effects on later analyses, and error behavior. The schema covers parameter shape but the description leaves the operational context incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'value' and the 'apertureType' enum list and default. The description's phrase 'type and value' merely restates the schema at a high level and adds no format, unit, or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Set the system aperture') and lists the two things being set (type and value), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, distinguish this from neighbouring set_* tools such as zemax_set_afocal_mode or zemax_set_apodization, which also mutate system-level settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a system must be open/connected), and no mention of alternatives or when not to call it. The agent must infer the context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.